bigrich wrote:i'm not saying this is right or fair, i agree with the SFFP policies. there are two sides to every story but, and the possibility's of having a blood feud over a "lawful" killing are real. maybe a heap of us should just pack up and move to the USA

We already have blood feuds using illegal firearms between gangs and drug dealers.Because of the potential further attacks against an already-victim is exactly why we should be armed, not a reason to disarm the victims.If you are victimised and the criminal gets away with it then they're less likely to come after you in revenge, so it's better to just be the victim the first time? That's a ridiculous premise for any civilised society.

Yeah bigrich i'm hearing you about what is being said being taken out of context or further I put an opinion on here and all of a sudden it sounds like I'm for handing out hand guns to untrained people I thought that with all the common sense here they could work out what I was saying but some tend to waver from the true meaning of the post I'm starting to regret even posting my opinion as some don't want to see others opinions To set the record straight on my view on personal ownership for whatever reason, is total compliance with all training to render the person safe enough to own the gun , not all will pass but only the competent will and then comes the back ground checks it can be made safe with the right frame of mind which I find lacking everywhere these days

G'day Granddad,Mate if my comments on this subject made you feel that way, my apologies, it was neither my intent nor was it directed.

Your opinion is your opinion mate, no need to apologize for that.

The point I was trying to make is that of escalation.We're going to have a fight, I hear you're bringing a stick, so I bring a bat, then you pull a knife, I pull a gun and you end up hosing me down with a backpack minigun

Meaning if crims, who are not going to suddenly reform, know that people might be armed, they will escalate the violence of their commision of whatever atrocity accordingly.Just saying, if the rabbits I hunt suddenly started shooting back, I would not stop shooting at them I'd see their bet and raise them.

Nah Gaz alls good mate it's not you I was just generalising maybe a brain fart mate But I do think a few questions of late have been asked by some person to create a conversation on the forum to gain info but i'll leave it there As i'm not quiet sure at present Tin hat maybe called for

grandadbushy wrote:Yeah bigrich i'm hearing you about what is being said being taken out of context or further I put an opinion on here and all of a sudden it sounds like I'm for handing out hand guns to untrained people I thought that with all the common sense here they could work out what I was saying but some tend to waver from the true meaning of the post I'm starting to regret even posting my opinion as some don't want to see others opinions To set the record straight on my view on personal ownership for whatever reason, is total compliance with all training to render the person safe enough to own the gun , not all will pass but only the competent will and then comes the back ground checks it can be made safe with the right frame of mind which I find lacking everywhere these days

ya don't have to explain yaself to me grandad , we're on the same page on a lot of stuff mate. should never be afraid to voice a opinion on this forum ol mate, it's how ya word stuff that maters in this politically correct b@llcrap age that matters. folks should respect other peoples right to a different point of view as well. that's not a crack at anyone either, that's just in general. had a few jameson's irish whiskeys, going off line now to get a good night sleep so i can go test some loads at ripley bright and early tomorrow . cheers fellas one and all . and don't let the stress of the silly season get to you

grandadbushy wrote:Nah Gaz alls good mate it's not you I was just generalising maybe a brain fart mate But I do think a few questions of late have been asked by some person to create a conversation on the forum to gain info but i'll leave it there As i'm not quiet sure at present Tin hat maybe called for

Blade mate, that is an option but is it a good option, I know personally many instances of blood feuds that went on for decades between family members.

But that's not the issue, personal protection will need a wholesale change of australian rules and laws.

Do they then delete the requirement of safe storage? See my example before regarding time taken to assemble firearms.

Do they change the definition of self defense from reasonable force to excessive force? What if the intruder comes with a knife and is shot by a pistol.

Then we talk about a suitably trained individual to get personal protection permit, if the requirements are onerous than many will not bother, and if they are easy, then mistakes are very likely to happen. And finally mate, killing another human being is not something that normal ppl can handle, they will need a lot of mental help afterwards...tbh it's likely something they will never recover for the rest of their life.

Finally the culture of australia is different.... very different from America or even other asian countries.

Anyway while personal protection will get a lot of ppl to join the shooters party, the chances of it being ever passed into law is zero. But it will give ammunition to the anti to create hysteria about qld shooters party. My logic is of low hanging fruit. Hey the easily attainable goals first one you have traction and gotten the easily strained high impact goals then you can focus on others, things like appearance laws, uniform laws across the states, license validity and easy transfer for ppl moving interstate, in every state, hunting in forests, heck even suppressors to save hearing damage would be better first goals to aim for. Once you get them, then you can say look I have achieved something substantial and you have credibility. And tbh even the shooting community you will get will over half who oppose personal protection. Maybe work on them first then the scared joe blo

grandadbushy wrote:Nah Gaz alls good mate it's not you I was just generalising maybe a brain fart mate But I do think a few questions of late have been asked by some person to create a conversation on the forum to gain info but i'll leave it there As i'm not quiet sure at present Tin hat maybe called for

Grandadbusy, I may well be barking up the wrong tree but if you're referring to me I'm more than happy to explain myself further and perhaps should've done this at the start.

Ziad wrote:Blade mate, that is an option but is it a good option, I know personally many instances of blood feuds that went on for decades between family members.

But that's not the issue, personal protection will need a wholesale change of australian rules and laws.

Do they then delete the requirement of safe storage? See my example before regarding time taken to assemble firearms.

Do they change the definition of self defense from reasonable force to excessive force? What if the intruder comes with a knife and is shot by a pistol.

Then we talk about a suitably trained individual to get personal protection permit, if the requirements are onerous than many will not bother, and if they are easy, then mistakes are very likely to happen. And finally mate, killing another human being is not something that normal ppl can handle, they will need a lot of mental help afterwards...tbh it's likely something they will never recover for the rest of their life.

Finally the culture of australia is different.... very different from America or even other asian countries.

Anyway while personal protection will get a lot of ppl to join the shooters party, the chances of it being ever passed into law is zero. But it will give ammunition to the anti to create hysteria about qld shooters party. My logic is of low hanging fruit. Hey the easily attainable goals first one you have traction and gotten the easily strained high impact goals then you can focus on others, things like appearance laws, uniform laws across the states, license validity and easy transfer for ppl moving interstate, in every state, hunting in forests, heck even suppressors to save hearing damage would be better first goals to aim for. Once you get them, then you can say look I have achieved something substantial and you have credibility. And tbh even the shooting community you will get will over half who oppose personal protection. Maybe work on them first then the scared joe blo

We already have tons of laws to address violent feuding.Secure storage is unaffected, we are not required to have our firearms unloaded and secured while we are using them, if you are using it for self-defence then you are using it.Yes, people struggle with taking other's lives, but people also struggle with having their own life taken, being raped or assaulted...which is better, having a troubled but live victim still in our community, or having a live uninjured attacker still in our community?

Ok cool thanks mate. After re reading some of my posts I though my own ranty approach and heaps of questions might be seen that way. I've got to say the volume of coming through this site is pretty impressive. Know a fair bit more now than I did on Wednesday

Gaznazdiak wrote:The start is almost always the best place to start ecobogan, off you go then.

Ok. Well I wrote in with a bit of steam because shooting is yet another one of my pastimes heading down the 'over regulated' gurgler.

Is it worth approaching a body like GCA with some kind of deal...and has this been done before? If, by some marvelous feat if diplomacy, the two sides can rough out a set of terms they're both ok with then that, I believe, would have a whole lot more clout to changing policy than the current 'push pull' caper going on now.Example-- I personally would be happy to make my safe utterly impossible to penetrate by whatever means in exchange for the legalisation of an integrally suppressed .22 repeater.This would MAYBE ease their minds on gun theft while allowing a piddly .22 that evidently no 'suppressor friendly' country has any grief with. I am trying to read up as much as possible about whether this deal business has been posed already but it's sometimes easier to just ask the question. So...any ideas? Or is it my mind that need the integral suppressor...

Gaznazdiak wrote:The start is almost always the best place to start ecobogan, off you go then.

Ok. Well I wrote in with a bit of steam because shooting is yet another one of my pastimes heading down the 'over regulated' gurgler.

Is it worth approaching a body like GCA with some kind of deal...and has this been done before? If, by some marvelous feat if diplomacy, the two sides can rough out a set of terms they're both ok with then that, I believe, would have a whole lot more clout to changing policy than the current 'push pull' caper going on now.Example-- I personally would be happy to make my safe utterly impossible to penetrate by whatever means in exchange for the legalisation of an integrally suppressed .22 repeater.This would MAYBE ease their minds on gun theft while allowing a piddly .22 that evidently no 'suppressor friendly' country has any grief with. I am trying to read up as much as possible about whether this deal business has been posed already but it's sometimes easier to just ask the question. So...any ideas? Or is it my mind that need the integral suppressor...

First, GCA will not compromise while any civilian can still access any firearm. They won't even allow us to have suppressors after they take all our firearms, just on principle.

Second, the same thing that makes it impossible to build an unmodifiable firearm is what makes it impossible to make an impenetrable safe, any safe you can make, can be opened